idk...im currently winning a game againt a person over 2000 on this site, my rating being mid 18's and i don't consider it trivial or rude . I'm just making sure i'm not making any mistakes and finishing it up with solid chess. Especially since i lose winning games all the time...but thats just me
This is getting ridiculous
Sort:
dee, no its just me and my game, as justin_craddock said, I kinda often loose winning games due to blunders. Especially those under pressure, time. A rook is a rook. It has its points, dosnt make blunders, players do. I like the game due to that fact, that shit happens, people make mistakes, tactics are great, but the game will only be fun if another humans is on the other side of the board.
It might help to play only premium members. There is a provision in "Start a Game" where one can click on "Only premium players." Those players have invested valuable time and money not only to enjoy playing chess but to learn to become better players. Most of them, if not all of them, do not want to waste time playing out a clearly lost game and don't. And I don't think it's an elitist attitude or one to help Chess.com to make more money. It's just the way it is. They know where the good players are, find them, and play them. I've been doing that for many months now, after I discovered that provision, and I get all the players I want. Try it. It may cut down on the grief and anger and frustration we have all faced.
Snob.
Jun 16, 2023
0
#166
CrispyCruiserr wrote:
Salaskan wrote:
I'm willing to bet that I'm spending over 50% of my time on live chess playing out positions that are already clearly won. All those pathetic griefers who play on in positions where they're down a full rook *snip*
Yes It’s absolutely pathetic. Butthurt manchildren in their 40s or older playing out the game down TWO QUEENS. Last week I had to tell this CLOWN he should resign when I had two queens vs his two pawns. What is that - 16 points of material? His chance of winning the game was 0. His chance of lucking into a stalemate vs two queens was 0.01%, but he just couldn’t bring himself to resign. When I told him to resign (and yes, I will tell them to resign in this situation - if they don’t observe chess etiquette, then they lose that return courtesy), I received a racist death threat. He is now banned. His ego brought forth a series of unfortunate events where he lost his account. If he would’ve resigned like a big boy, he’d still have his account active, with his over 12,000 games played.*snip*
12 year bump.
Op isn't online anymore.
Your opponent lost his account for some other reason than not resigning. He wasn't stalling, just playing on. At your rating, stalemate probability may be slightly higher than you'd estimated.
Don't think any of it warrants calling anyone a pathetic man child. Definitely not calling you one
Old thread. But what struck me was the complaint about a "full rook" down without compensation. Last I checked, losing a rook wasn't a checkmate. There are lots of games where a "full rook" sits inactive in a corner. And compensation depends on judgement. I believe that someone seeing a rook fall then throwing a fit because an opponent didn't see this as an automatic win is probably actually irritated that he gets beat by the "no compensation" position. It sure sounded like that. Execution isn't imagined superiority.
Even queen down can win, if there is compensation. And that's a judgement call. Not for an arrogant player to assert.
Of course some players point out obvious problems where by any measure a position is hopeless. But the assertion of a "full rook" down really doesn't support the complaint. And if by "full rook" he means two pawns and a knight, well then that's obviously a guy who wants his opponents to fold or be cancelled after witnessing his brilliant exchange. And gets outraged when he loses that game.
The "sport" is in the rules. The way to prove a win is to actually.....win. Just put yourself in an arbiter's position. You are called to a table where one player insists another resign. As if that isn't already against the rules of the sport and civil society. Both players agreed to play. So what does the arbiter do? He just tells the players to play. Anything else is just an invitation to senseless spats and name calling. And who wants that?
That's a considerable change of tune from trying to justify a "full rook" down and opposition assessment of compensation. With all due respect, 1600s or any teens is squarely in blunder town. And that includes stalemates. So I repeat and affirm. This sounds like a lucky person got a blunder and wants to break the rules and abuse a player for a win before he blunders himself.
Name any sport where playing from a losing position is considered unsportsmanlike. It's the opposite. Now it can be polite to resign. That's for sure. But to expect teens rated players to properly assess positions and be free of blunders is hugely discordant with reality. And that makes this really about someone's self importance attempting to override the plain reality. Unless you wish to assert that teens rated players are blunder free. Carlson in the Norwegian tournament made several blunders. What's his rating?
So where players are comfortable in their opposition's capabilities and their own, they may themselves choose to resign of course. I hope you actually read the book you quoted where it says that resignation is a personal decision.
Now about your 800 assertion. I have played zero games here. Zero puzzles. Nada. Nor anywhere else registered So please explain your error and apologize. Blatant defamation is intolerable.
meaning?